Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29075440›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2017

Efficient isolation method for high-quality genomic DNA from cicada exuviae.

Hoa Quynh Nguyen, Ye Inn Kim, Amaël Borzée, Yikweon Jang

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hoa Quynh NguyenDepartment of Life Science Ewha Womans University Seoul Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9157-1647
Ye Inn KimDepartment of Life Science Ewha Womans University Seoul Korea.
Amaël BorzéeDepartment of Biological Science Seoul National University Seoul Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1093-677X
Yikweon JangDepartment of Life Science Ewha Womans University Seoul Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, animal ethics issues have led researchers to explore nondestructive methods to access materials for genetic studies. Cicada exuviae are among those materials because they are cast skins that individuals left after molt and are easily collected. In this study, we aim to identify the most efficient extraction method to obtain high quantity and quality of DNA from cicada exuviae. We compared relative DNA yield and purity of six extraction protocols, including both manual protocols and available commercial kits, extracting from four different exoskeleton parts. Furthermore, amplification and sequencing of genomic DNA were evaluated in terms of availability of sequencing sequence at the expected genomic size. Both the choice of protocol and exuvia part significantly affected DNA yield and purity. Only samples that were extracted using the PowerSoil DNA Isolation kit generated gel bands of expected size as well as successful sequencing results. The failed attempts to extract DNA using other protocols could be partially explained by a low DNA yield from cicada exuviae and partly by contamination with humic acids that exist in the soil where cicada nymphs reside before emergence, as shown by spectroscopic measurements. Genomic DNA extracted from cicada exuviae could provide valuable information for species identification, allowing the investigation of genetic diversity across consecutive broods, or spatiotemporal variation among various populations. Consequently, we hope to provide a simple method to acquire pure genomic DNA applicable for multiple research purposes.

Indexed as

cicada exoskeletonCrytptotympana atrataexuviaenoninvasive DNA sampling

Identifiers

PMID29075440
PMCPMC5648668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.